A team of about 30 developers is working on a photo sharing project.
Most of developers are using Github.
One developer (Jeffery) has just used CodeCommit for a feature and found that it is very convenient to use.
Moreover, the whole project is almost fully developed and integrated under AWS environment.
Jeffery just demoed his experience to the team and they agreed to migrate all their existing developments into CodeCommit as well.
Some other developers need to work on Jeffery's CodeCommit code repository too.
How should the team migrate to ensure CodeCommit is used properly? Select 2.
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D. E.OptionB & C are Correct:
You can migrate an existing Git repository to an AWS CodeCommit repository.
This process includes:
Complete the initial setup required for AWS CodeCommit.
Create an AWS CodeCommit repository.
Clone the repository and push it to AWS CodeCommit.
View files in the AWS CodeCommit repository.
Share the AWS CodeCommit repository with your team.
Refer to the below link for details: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/codecommit/latest/userguide/how-to-migrate-repository-existin g.html#how-to-migrate-existing-share.
Option A is incorrect because the CodeCommit Repo url should be a HTTPS or SSH.
Option D is incorrect: because the team contains 30 users so it is not proper to assign an IAM policy for each IAM user.
Option C is better than Option.
D.
This is also stated in https://docs.aws.amazon.com/codecommit/latest/userguide/how-to-migrate-repository-existing.html#how-to-migrate-existing-share.
Option E is incorrect because full admin access is improper as they only need the CodeCommit relevant access.
This option is insecure and not a best practice.
The team of 30 developers wants to migrate their existing development to CodeCommit, and some developers need to work on Jeffery's CodeCommit repository. To ensure that CodeCommit is used properly, there are two main steps the team should take:
Option A and B both suggest creating a new CodeCommit repository for the project. The team can choose either one of these options.
Option A suggests creating a new CodeCommit repository when required. To do so, the team should create a new CodeCommit repository using the AWS Management Console or AWS CLI. Once the repository is created, the team members can git clone the repository in their local machines and use git push to upload their code changes to the new repository URL such as “http://git?-codecommit.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/v1/repos/MyRepository”. Then they can view the files in AWS CodeCommit to see if the git push is successful.
Option B suggests setting up a new CodeCommit repository using AWS CLI. The team can use the AWS CLI to create a new CodeCommit repository and find the repository URL, which can be a HTTPS or SSH one. Then they can use git push to upload the repository from local to the CodeCommit server. Once the repository is uploaded, the team can inspect if the files show up properly in CodeCommit.
Option C and D both suggest creating IAM policies for the team members.
Option C suggests creating an IAM group with a suitable CodeCommit policy. The team members can be added to that group, and they will have access to the CodeCommit repository. Once the team members are added to the group, they can git clone the repository and start working on their own branches.
Option D suggests creating an IAM user for each developer and adding a CodeCommit Read policy to each user. Once the users are set up with the policy, they can git clone the repository and start working on their branches.
Option E suggests giving all users full admin access to CodeCommit, which is not recommended. Full admin access may lead to security issues, and it is not necessary for all users to have this level of access.
In summary, the team should choose either Option A or Option B to set up the CodeCommit repository and then choose either Option C or Option D to set up IAM policies for the team members. Option E is not recommended as it gives all users full admin access.